Hello, how are you all?

Doing well.

I think now we're good, Mayor.

Okay.

Well, then it is 532.

And we will officially call this meeting to order.

Just so folks have a sense of the agenda.

We're gonna start with kind of the state of Richmond update from Wendy.

And she'll specifically focus on key areas related to education, transit, constitutional amendments, and budget impacts.

From there, we'll move through our bills, same process as last time.

I'll go through the no positions, the oppose, the support, um, and we'll pull any ones that are needed for discussion, but we're not gonna go through um each number.

So with that, Wendy, I'm gonna kick it over to you.

Or did you want to approve the minutes from last time first?

Um problem.

Um, can you please make a motion to approve the minutes from last time?

Yes.

Yes, I I moved to approve the minutes from the uh legislative subcommittee meeting on January 9.

Okay, is there a second?

Do I have to second this one?

Yeah.

So I forgot this is actually the committee.

All right, it's second.

It's been uh the motion has been moved and appropriately seconded.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right, any opposed?

No, the I sat it.

The minutes are approved.

Now we will turn it over to Wendy for our official update.

All right.

Well, thank you, Mayor Gaskins.

We just I just completed the first uh full week in Richmond, and it is a uh big blur, but it was a lot of fun.

Um and I wanna do what the mayor said, which was talk about four issues, school funding, transportation funding, the constitutional amendments, and the budget update.

And uh school funding, uh, there's a a couple of bills that are would raise the sales tax by one percent that would um allow for more funding for school construction.

Uh one of those bills on the House side was reported out of uh the subcommittee.

Uh, we testified in support uh with the Alexandria City Public Schools lobbyist as well, um, highlighting our shared need for sustainable tools to address our aging school facilities.

Um that is moving forward.

One, uh there's a couple of other bills that have sort of similar iterations to them that uh we just have to watch what they're doing.

But that bill seems to be soaring through and um should go through as one of the first bills in the General Assembly.

Um, on transportation funding, there are two sets of cognate companion bills.

There's um, so but what I'm saying is that there's House and Senate companions for two different uh versions of a bill that would look for transportation funding.

And thanks to Raymond for really diving in and giving me good background on all of those bills.

Um the first bill is a broad transportation revenue package.

It raises revenue by modernizing and expanding the tax base.

So you can actually see tax rates might go down, but the amount of things that they want to tax would go up to raise money for transportation, predominantly in Northern Virginia, but it would also raise funds for uh transportation across the commonwealth.

Um, the second bill more aligns with um what is commonly called the SJ28 plan.

It uh it has it it really just focuses on uh local transit systems like Dash and Commuter Rail addressing known operating and cap capital funding gaps, but it also does provide funding for other um transit projects across the commonwealth.

The idea is uh raise funding to make sure that we can uh pay for Womata and the needs of Northern Virginia, but by doing that, you also have to make it so that it's attractive across the commonwealth.

Um what I would say about those two sort of they're they're not competing bills, those two different discussion point bills.

It's not quite sure which one leadership likes right now.

So there's a bit of a pause while we figure out which one we want to put our backs into or whether we combine some aspects of those two different bills and move forward.

So we're um we're all sort of waiting for uh which bill do we start really lobbying for and lean in on.

Um the next is the constitutional amendments, and they cleared the General Assembly really quickly.

They are all passed, and there's scheduled to be a referendum, uh, particularly on the redistricting bill, um, the uh mid-decade redistricting bill.

That that's actually gonna be on April 21st.

Um, the other three, the affirmative right to marry, the restoration of votes following completion of a felony sentence, and access to reproductive freedom, they have all passed as well.

And we just have to wait and figure out when they're gonna hold those referendums, probably in November.

Um, and again, I just want to highlight that members of our delegation are championing those uh all of those amendments in some way.

So um it's really exciting for us.

And then finally, there's a budget update.

The Senate budget is the only uh the Senate appropriations bill is the only bill we really have to work with.

Of course, there was the governor's budget, but that's pretty much dead on arrival because we have Democrats and um all like the two chambers and in the administration.

So while it's a starting point for conversation, um, there's gonna be a lot of overhaul to it.

So we got our first glimpse with the um the Senate budget that or the Senate um appropriations bill that came out last week and of import to the city of Alexandria are that um Senator Adam Evan included two amendments, or actually three amendments that were related to us.

It's a 112 and a half million dollar increase to the Virginia Housing Trust Fund.

I wanted to see Mary smile.

There she goes.

Yeah.

Um, and then we got two million in accessibility and rehabilitation at the Freedom House Museum.

If Sean is on, yay.

Um, and then the third one is a work group, uh, establishing a work group to examine locally subsidized state employees.

We didn't get any money with that one.

We originally were going to get some money with that one, but that was already pulled out.

So those are the three budget amendments that were directly applicable to the city.

And I will stop there unless you have questions.

Um, unless you have questions about it, I will say that actually I want to add that five at five o'clock today was the last time new bills could be introduced.

So I have a lot of homework this weekend to make sure that I'm tagging everyone on these final bills that came in.

Um a lot of times they try to sneak in the more controversial bills at the end.

So we're keeping our eye on that.

Uh, but I think that's it from me.

Thank you, Wendy, and congratulations on your first week.

I had a few follow-up questions, I guess working from the bottom.

For the work group on local subsidized employees.

I know that there are a number of bills related to constitutional employees.

Does that mean that those bills are less likely to move forward because they would be something that the work group would need to consider?

Or kind of what's the intersection between those bills and this proposed work group?

It's a great question.

I don't think that they would have an impact on those bills as they move through.

I don't know that a lot of other members have seen the budget amendments that are there, the working groups that are there.

I think, yeah, I think this is Sarah.

Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.

I'm I'm still on the road and I apologize for being in transit.

Um, but I just wanted to go back really quickly to the way um and but you were talking about the Senate budget bill.

Um, those are proposed amendments to the base budget.

None of them are done deals.

Everything that is in that package of amendments is up for debate.

There are also a huge package of house budget amendments that were released yesterday.

Um, and so they are they so basically every member can say, here is you know, here are all the things I want to ask for in whatever the final budget looks like.

And then the budget process is sort of picking and choosing among those to math the math and put the pieces together to see what the final budget looks like.

Um, so I just wanted to make it clear that these are not things that are in either the Senate budget or the House budget.

They are points of negotiation.

Um, if they are on both sides, it is easy, it is, you know, it is more likely for them to wind up in the final budget, but they are all a hundred percent still points of negotiation for what winds up in this final Senate budget, the final house budget, and then in the final negotiated budget.

And and the house, the house budget amendments would include uh Elizabeth Bennett Parker also included um uh she included a work study group as well on uh uh locally subsidized employees.

And uh we also got a budget of um there's an I'll look it up, but there's another budget amendment in there on um uh there's the const the constitutional employees and also on the there was another one, the how the Freedom House Museum also in there as well.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate um the clarification on both parts.

The only other question I had on this is on Tuesday, councils receiving a presentation from the council of governments as well as Ramada related to DMV moves.

You mentioned that the two transportation funding packages, people are still trying to figure out kind of where to align.

Do we have a sense of where Wamada and Cog are in terms of the two different proposals?

I'm not sure.

Uh, we've had a lot of meetings on the different transportation bills, and everyone is just in a stasis right now.

And I'm I'm not sure if anybody's putting forward either one of the bills in particular.

Um, I think they're just uh like I I know that they're concerned that a lot of leadership actually isn't in Northern Virginia.

So they're waiting to see like where leadership would lean, knowing like what the ramifications would be sort of from the the two bills, which one they would prefer to see because they're not exactly Northern Virginia specific.

Um Councilman McPeight, do you have any questions?

No, that was I appreciate the update.

Um, does any of uh any staff was kind of scrolling through?

Does anyone on staff have questions given the update?

Okay, I'm not seeing any hands raised.

Okay, with that, then I'll move us to our bill spreadsheet.

The first bucket of bills is um categorized as the ones where the city's taken no position.

I have three that I marked.

Um the first one was HB94.

This is related to vehicle registration fees for disabled veterans.

I guess um I'm curious to learn a little bit more about the no position, but I think where it's coming from is I think it was last year.

We got a number of new authorities related to um veterans and their spouses, and council ended up taking all of those authorities.

So it seems like an area we wanted to do more in.

So just kind of wondering um why why we don't have a stronger position on this one and what the implications are to the city.

So HB, let me pull that up.

Um track bill.

It's a bill by delegate Bennett Parker.

Oh, um, we should definitely be supporting that one.

Let me pull up what the comments were.

Uh it was H HB97 or SB97.

I apologize.

Sorry, it's HB94.

HB 94.

Disabled visions.

I think let's see.

The discussion was, oh, it had no impact.

I think we should 100% uh discuss it.

It largely has no impact on the city, which is why we put no discussion.

Um, but we're happy to support it.

Okay.

I think, yeah, where possible ones, especially ones that are represented by our delegation.

Let's either figure out how we put in the support or watch with amendments or do what we need to do to work with them to be in the support category.

Got it.

Um the other one I had a question on was HB 1094.

This is related to um firearms and ammunition tax.

It's um delegate Amy Loffer.

This one had no impact on the city directly, so we didn't take a position on it.

But if uh if it fits in alignment with the city's legislative priority on uh finding new ways to for gun prevention, I think you could easily move that to support.

Yeah, I have this one flagged as well because I thought that this is under aligned our with our values.

Okay, I feel like this is an area we directly called out in our package.

Um I think let's move that one to support as well.

Um Kirk, do you have any in the no position bucket?

No, that was the only one with the HB9194.

Uh just triple check.

Okay, staff, are there any that you were hoping we might pull and discuss further?

Um not seeing anyone.

Then I'm gonna move us to the opposed category.

Councilman McPike, do you want to start?

Uh one second here.

Roll into these spreadsheets.

Uh, I have one I can ask.

Yeah, go ahead, please.

Um HB 1295, it's related to law enforcement and artificial intelligence.

I guess it was unclear to me from the explanation what the like what the intent is of this bill.

So if someone could just give me a little more context.

So this uh we had comments from uh Sean Casey and uh Sheriff Casey and Ryan Sands from our technology department.

Uh Ryan, you're on.

Did you want to comment on it?

Um, yes, this bill, um, it's been similar to some previous bills where the intention is to uh better govern and and try and be in transparent with um how AI is being used um for public safety purposes.

The the concerns were the ambiguity around what exactly constitutes AI because there's technology where it's being introduced as features within it, and then there's also just new AI, and it's it's unclear what that workload would look like for um public safety agencies to manage maintain that.

And then um, I believe there was also concerns around um some of the legal considerations because if there were issues within 90 days, there was some liable um concerns with jurisdictions.

So it's just making sure that we were in a position to be able to honor that that a little more clarity might help.

ITS was opposed just because it's it's very similar to those previous years uh bills.

Um, but we could move to watch as long as we get a little more clarity on that.

And I believe our our peers and sheriff were uh in support of watch.

Um yeah, I'd be curious.

I guess I'd probably want to see this move to watch, and I'd be curious, Wendy, if there might be some conversations we can have with delegate Clark to get additional clarity.

Yeah, I also um I guess part of what raises it for me is I know there have been some conversations or things I've read in the newspaper about emerging technology with AI and body worn cameras, and I think it's something that's it's gonna keep coming up more and more, and I'd rather us be helpful in shaping how it's regulated than having it dropped on us and how it happened.

So if we have ideas for what the definition should be, or if there's opportunity to work on this, uh I'd like to see us shape help shape it.

Absolutely.

Um we can definitely work with both technology and legal to figure out if there's a definition we might be able to walk in with.

Yeah, and I I'd say to you, let's let's also keep APD and sheriffs at the table.

Yep.

Because I only know one type.

I don't I only know one type of technology.

I'm sure there's many, many more.

Okay.

Uh councilman McTech.

Yes, HB547 um by Helmer, it's marked as opposed in green and also for discussion.

I was curious.

What are we discussing there?

So for me, the discussion was one whether Dash was public or private, but I'm gonna hand this over to either Josh Baker or Ray Mui.

Um about this particular bill, or is either Josh or yeah, Josh is on.

I know that.

Yeah, I'm here.

Okay.

Uh sure, I can explain.

Um, so Dash is not directly impacted by this bill, but I think it's important to note that Dash is uh employees are not city employees, they are technically private employees of of a contractor.

Um we have a unique management structure that really affords us the success we have, but neighboring jurisdictions are more traditionally contracted, and um our concern is that what this does is it sort of forces the hand of all of the jurisdictions um and folds um compensation and benefits under an expectation that it quote unquote matches the local uh equivalents, but it's unclear what what that would mean.

And I think the other piece of that is that you could end up in a runaway train sort of situation where um you start having things sort of stacking on top of each other and then comparing to inequitable local equivalents um or even against Wamada.

And at least here in Alexandria, we do a really great job working with the union and our our workforce to understand what's what's appropriate compensation and benefits for Alexandria.

Um and so we're just concerned and sort of aligning with other jurisdictions, I think, and they're similar concerns about the impact that this could have from a statewide mandate that sort of forces the hand of a local decision that is really informed by the local community and the workforce locally as opposed to statewide.

Okay.

Kirk, can you say that bill number again?

I'm sorry.

Uh yes, that was um it was HB 547 by Dan Helmer.

I would note that there's a Senate cognate um patroned by Senator Salim.

Okay.

This has previously been, I believe, a Scott Soravel bill.

Um, just a flag for um for y'all.

Okay.

Well, a little bit of additional context.

I think it stems from some more public disputes that have occurred in other jurisdictions between um uh labor and uh management companies, but I think that um those things have had been resolved eventually.

Um, but they certainly don't have don't happen with us, but again, in this going into law could potentially have a ripple effect on us that would really change the dynamic.

Okay.

That makes sense.

And then I mean I don't I don't have a strong position either way.

I was just curious about that one.

Um and what was going on there.

And then also as I was interested in HB 1144.

HB 1144.

Water sewer connection fees, first-time home buyers.

Yeah.

I believe that would be Paul.

Uh we've got um, oh, that would be Tess.

Is there somebody from Tess, Roswell?

Um are you on?

Um good evening, Wendy.

This is um Aaron Bevis Carver.

Oh, it's Aaron.

Hey.

Hi, how are you?

Um so I think so.

This um legislation provides for um, or I don't know if Wendy, if you want to kind of tee this up, or if I should just jump on.

Go quick, but it's it down.

Yeah, so basically it provides for um waiver of sewer connection fees um with respect to affordable housing, which is something that we support.

There is a little bit of concern about the language that says that it we that the locality shall provide a waiver versus may provide.

Okay.

And then, and then there's a little bit of a fuzzy language um that it shall be as a as opposed to saying specifically to those affordable units, it says shall provide a waiver of the fees to the development.

So it was it was just a concern about how that could be interpreted.

Okay.

I mean if it comes down to a local authority and it being a mandate as opposed to um something more permissive.

I can understand why we would we'd have concern about that.

I would ask um, do we think there's an opportunity to work with the bill patron on this?

Like given it's so aligned with our housing goals, and it seems like it's too small language changes.

Do we have a sense of where they are in terms of uh um openness to adjust?

We can check on that.

I can absolutely check on that.

I can think of I can take a look at that bill with the staff.

I think we have ability to make some minor suggestions that could clarify those points.

Okay, let's maybe just put on like a watch question mark bucket um while we figured do some additional work on that one.

Mm-hmm.

Yep.

That makes sense.

That was all I had in the opposed category.

Okay.

Um for me, I just wanted to flag just um I guess there are three and they're similar areas.

One is SB370 on prevailing wage, the other is SB 366 on the Virginia Public Procurement Act.

Uh, the other is HB 850, which I guess is the companion bill.

I think for these bills, I can understand why we have concerns.

I think from local control, from um sort of mandating certain things to be done.

But I think that one, they're being carried by somebody who's been a good partner of the city.

I think two, they are aligned with all of our other labor goals.

Like we've been pushing as a city for prevailing wages, we've been pushing for PLAs, we've been pushing for all of these other things.

And so I think some bills like this that are value aligned, we might want to put in a watch category and then try and work with the patron before we are an outright opposed.

Okay.

There was it was HB or SB370, HB 850, and what was the third one, Mayor?

SB 366.

You got it.

Mm-hmm.

Absolutely.

And then the only other one I had a question about was um safety on speed cameras.

HB133.

I feel like normally we would be in support of bills related to speed safety and pedestrian safety.

This one's opposed.

I'm just curious, um, what are the pieces of it that are giving us pause?

Um, that is is Hillary on or Roswell.

I am on.

Yeah.

I am looking through my looking through the list to find there were several on um speed enforcement.

Can you say the number one more time?

Trying to pull it up.

Is this a delay bill?

No, that's bill.

Okay.

This is the expansion bill with the guardrail language.

Is this the one where we Wendy, we added additional suggested language?

Uh that was eight, that was HB120.

That was the Delaney bill.

This one's the Siebold bill.

The delaney bill was more guardrails.

This one's more um trying expanding authority.

So this one you wrote establishes a new statewide C safety camera frame framework that significantly expands where automated enforcement may be used while centralizing program control reporting and revenue at the state level while aligned with safety goals and concept that bills prescriptive structure and restrict uh revenue restrictions raise concerns for Alexander regarding local control implementation burden and effectiveness.

Yeah.

So I think this is the one where there was um they were being really prescriptive about how the jurisdictions could use the revenue from these speed cameras.

And so we had worked on some language uh to think about how we could work in there that the uh revenue could be used more for in the administrative and the operational side of things.

So a lot of the bills are allowing for the cost of operating with the vendor, but then the rest of the money would have to go to very specific projects.

And I think on our side, we you know, we are looking to make sure we're offsetting costs for police officers for school crossing guards.

There's a lot of other um kind of administrative and operational ways that we would use those funds today.

And so it was really prescriptive about how we could use the funds, and there were uh other bills that were less prescriptive on on that front.

And we did provide some language um uh that we thought could potentially for a different bill that could be used in any of these really um to make sure that we have some flexibility with the use of the funds.

So on these bills, a lot of the there's a lot of speed camera safety bills out there, and and Sarah, correct me if I'm wrong, a lot of these might be a collapse together.

Um and uh we are working with uh with uh Delaney to make sure that we have language in there that would allow for a more prescriptive or less prescription on where we can use that funding.

Um I worked with staff today, they are okay with our uh suggested language that they're considering it.

Um the problem with Delaney bill is that um it has other provisions that would um affect uh uh the liabilities that the the city would incur in in cases where uh if something goes wrong with these speed liability cameras, so we're also working with that language as well.

But I can definitely go to uh delegate seabold and see if she's amenable to also considering changes and how prescriptive we use, uh how prescriptive they are and where we can use that funding.

Yeah, I think ultimately I think we want more tools of that improve pedestrian safety.

And so if we can just continue to track which ones are moving or which one has uh more traction, I think that would be helpful.

Um, and if she's open to amendments, let's figure out how how we could move on that, or if there's a different version of this that's moving faster, let's figure out how we align ourselves to that.

But I think um this is another one where given that it's so aligned with our priorities and vision zero and everything.

I don't know that we want to just have an outright oppose.

We might want to start a category that's like working with or adjusting or something where we are like really going to have a hyper focus on trying to get adjustments.

And I would say just for the like the big picture here, I would note that two bills that that take away our authority to do red light or speed cameras passed out of Senate committee.

So there is a real um focus on whether these programs are being done right and what guardrails need to be put in place in order for them to be um to be the most effective, the most appropriate um in the eyes of the general assembly.

Like that is a that is a real thing right now.

Um, and so I think your instinct to put them in sort of a a working on category is probably um probably a smart one because they are very much, you know, conceptually things that we you know that we support.

And if we can, you know, work on the um, you know, the details um that we get to yes.

But I think our goal with all of these should be getting to yes.

Sarah, what was the uh what region of the state were these um bills coming from to try to take away this thoroughly?

So they're all coming from Senator Mark Peak, um but they are in response to the data that was gathered by the crime commission on certain programs that are viewed as more uh revenue grabs than actual safety programs.

Ours is not one of them, but you know, we sort of get lumped in with them.

Yeah, we need to we need to make it clear that we're we're doing it right and that it's an important tool for the city.

Yep.

While we're more on the subject, unless we want to stay on this specific bill, but if we're on the subject sort of uh this pedestrian safety, bike safety, uh a bill that was highlighted to us by some advocates to look at potentially opposing that I didn't see on the list was HB 269.

I don't expect you all to go scrambling for a bill that's not on the list today.

Um, but if we could roll that bill in uh next uh next week, that'd be helpful.

That is flagged.

Um we actually have it was HB 269, correct?

Yeah, that's that's also that's also Hillary.

That's a watch right now.

Uh recommendation is a watch.

Um I didn't see it on the list, so apologies.

It would be on next list, but um, we have it as a watch.

We can already we can talk about it now if you want to.

Um Hillary.

Well, we all haven't done uh done an assessment on it yet.

I don't I don't want to force in that competition yet.

Yeah, still bill filing deadline.

We got we got a little time on these things.

Okay.

Okay.

Um so then let's plan on, I guess kind of going back.

These speed camera ones will add to a working on category, the housing related bills that are aligned with where we want to go, but where we have some changes to make, let's also add them to the working on.

Let's add um the AI and law enforcement to the working on.

And then um the same with the uh prevailing wage.

Okay.

Did staff have any on the oppose list that they would like for deeper conversation?

Uh one.

Okay.

I'm gonna move us to the support category.

I don't have any changes.

I did see um staff flagged in green, HB41.

This says uh the study JLARC housing projects zoning restrictions.

Let me see.

Let's not put that HP 41.

Oh, that one um we that there's no real flag on that because it uh procedure yeah, um, because there's uh I think there was no effect on the city.

So we I think the consideration was whether to track or not to track on that one.

We can keep tracking it.

Okay.

Okay.

Um the other one that it looks like fast highlighted is SB74.

SB74.

Local zoning ordinance authority.

Uh this one is Mary.

This one's uh this one's you.

This is uh the same that's in the milieu of all the different housing bills.

SB74.

Yes.

So the I believe this is the same as the it's McBike McPhike's bill, right?

The Senator McPike's bill.

So it's not the same one, but the similar from the one from last year, or are we looking at that one?

SB74?

SB74, it is McPike.

Yes.

Yeah.

So we just want to clarification on why we're supporting, or what are our concerns with it?

Yeah, it's flagged on the list as one for staff.

Uh it's highlighted on my list as one for discussion.

There's nothing to discuss, we don't have to discuss.

I'm just uh I think it's great.

It's support there.

The reason that it's flagged is that um there are some like there are some sort of down the road concerns that Mary expressed, just try like transparency issues to make sure that the implementation works.

Um just thinking ahead.

Like, do you want to do the thinking ahead if it were to pass what your concerns were there?

Which is why I flagged it.

Yeah.

It's just more so that again, we would want to make sure that we are um sorry.

Well, I it's been a long time.

I've had a lot of bills since this one.

Oh, oh, I was just thinking that this would expand.

So we already have an order, an affordable housing development ordinance, right?

This would provide explicit authority beyond what we currently have.

So uh I had just recommended considering readopting it under this.

If we have expanded authority at the state level, we should consider adopting it as well.

That's really what I was trying to highlight.

That's it.

Yeah, sorry.

Okay, well then we can move.

Um the other one that I have looks like Aspasia might wanted to add, might want to add something as well.

Yeah, I think Mary, was that the one that we wanted planning staff to tell us if uh the current negotiation ability we have will be compromised?

That was the only thing we want to explore.

We did like, of course, as affordable housing, you know, people all the new stuff, but we want to make sure that the stuff we are able to negotiate right now and uh certain exactions for affordable housing will not get compromised uh based on uh you know as of right sort of authority.

This Paul Star, I can respond to that uh sort of quickly.

I I don't think it changes what we do.

I I think it's it's an optional authority.

So right now the authority that's listed is you can provide a density bonus.

And this says in addition to a density bonus, you can do uh a lot of other things as well.

Uh so it doesn't take away from what we can do today.

Uh it's it's um it's added to what we can do.

So it's a local option.

So we should with support and leaning in on the support.

So I yeah, absolutely.

Similar to the bill that we discussed this morning about um again, giving our our neighbors the authority that we kind of already have plus, right?

You know, let's give us all some more tools, basically.

Great.

Thank you.

That makes sense.

I see two others.

Um, actually, let me make sure I'm tracking this right.

There's a number on the support that I have on the printout that I received that are blue and green.

Do you, Wendy, do you feel we need to discuss all the blue and green, or which ones rise to the top as to ones where there were significant concerns?

I think we're good.

The the the colors were just, yeah, the cut like the colors were just for us to flag when uh we were working on things where there might have been discussions that that occurred or points to highlight.

Okay.

Then of that list, I only had one more.

Um tell me more about the discussions related to HB976, the transportation of a person in the temporary detention process.

Um, yeah, this one uh we are really enthusiastic about um uh except uh so Frederico had oh Frederico had a flag on that one.

Frederico, did you want to talk about that?

That one is uh alternative transportation provider.

Well do as soon as I find my unmute button.

Um so we um we had a little bit of a concern because it appears that um this shifts the responsibility of transportation during the temporary detention order from law enforcement to an alternate transportation provider.

Um so we just need more information about that, what that would look like and who would do that.

I can definitely speak to the um definitely speak to the um patron on that bill and see if there's any guidelines there.

And I do think the emphasis on the qualifications and so that we are certain that whoever is given that responsibility meets qualifications to really assist someone who's in a mental health crisis.

So that's the key.

Um yeah, and I guess I'd be curious too, like um, as you guys have internal staff conversations, connecting with sheriff's office and APD as well, like understanding a bit more of like what goes into a handoff.

So it's both the person we're handing off to, but sort of what's that process need to look like and any liabilities for the city and that so both the sheriff's office and APD commented um uh the sheriff's office says it would reduce the reliance on law enforcements to conduct the transports and uh APD said there could be implementing implementation challenges on the state level, but the Groudon authority is welcome as it reduced the strain on law enforcement resources.

Whose bill is that?

That is uh prices.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

I'm sorry, Mayor.

Just one quick point.

My my quick read on this is it seems to only there's already an alternative transportation provider uh qualifications section, and it looks like this is saying that certain people qualify as one in a de facto way if they're employed by a certain employer.

So I'll work with DCHS and Wendy too to try to clarify that internally.

It may be that if it's a little less concerning than my recollection as well.

Um so good flag, Bonnie.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

I'm gonna move this to the watch category.

There is start.

Yeah, um, in the watch category, uh HB773.

Um it's an absentee voting bill by Thornton.

Um before we go to watch, there was one support that uh we I wanted to flag for a potential move to oppose, which was SB 298.

Um that bill would actually cut the number of days you were allowed to vote before the election.

And uh yeah, absolutely opposed.

Okay, okay, just making sure we're gonna move SB 298 to a post.

Okay, sorry, councilman, go ahead.

Uh yeah, I was asking about uh uh HB um 773 by uh Thornton, which is on the watch list and also 774.

You have two election-related ones by delegate Thornton on watch.

I was curious why they're on watch.

Sure.

Um Angie, did you want to explain what these bills do?

The HB773 on curing.

Sure.

So that one uh moves the deadline to cure from Friday at noon to Monday after the election at noon.

And the only thing our office was flagging is the fact that that's going to delay election results.

Um we already have after the election everyone curious when things are going to be sign-sealed, delivered and done.

And anything that does delay that process, you mean does delay the final certification from our office.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah.

I think that uh obviously we know that giving ballots more time to be cured or to arrive is going to um slow the process down a little bit.

Y'all do a great job.

Uh and you turn those votes around really fast.

Um, but it also gives people more time to get their voice heard in the election.

So I would hope that since this is kind of a democracy expanding initiative that we would uh be in favor of we're happy to move to support.

All right.

And uh that was um that was it on my on the watch list for me.

There was there was another one of the curing bills that that was 773.

Was there another one, councilman that you wanted to look at?

77374.

Same, okay.

Yeah.

Okay, we can change both of those.

Right.

Thank you.

Um I had I think two.

One is SV 352.

This is facial coverings for law enforcement.

Last time we met, we talked about working to see about any changes or clarity.

Just curious if we had any updates on how those conversations are going.

Absolutely.

I um met with Senator Salim, uh, who's carrying the House bill and told him that we were hoping to get to yes with him on this bill.

Um, he said he would look at our language, and he um he I sent him, I sent him suggested language that we worked on uh both the city attorney's office and the APD um worked on the language.

The language actually requests uh three things.

It wanted to make sure that um APD could wear masks when it is cold out, so cold weather, uh one for public health, and then one for undercover officers as well.

Um and then also just to make sure that when we're talking about face coverings, we weren't talking about sunglasses.

So um they could also be wearing sunglasses as long as the sunglasses didn't cover too much of their face.

So we send him that language, it's up for consideration.

I will check in with him.

He said that similar um similar negotiations were happening with the House bill.

So the conversations across those chambers are also happening as well.

Um, there's uh some concerns from other entities, VML and other entities that there's a sovereign immunity concern that also is in uh the bill.

I think it's sovereign immediately.

There's another concern on the bill that they have that they are also working out.

Um so more to come on that, but um he is ready or Senator Salim is ready and willing to listen to that conversation.

Thank you.

And then um SB4, I was curious what uh ACPS's position is on this.

It's full breakfast.

Oh, yeah, they support.

I'm I'll double check, but I believe they support.

I think if they're supporting, we should probably be in alignment with them on this one.

And it says the state's gonna reimburse them.

So it doesn't seem like there's a huge fiscal impact on this one.

The only fiscal impact, and this is from Kevin.

Sorry, go ahead.

Oh, I'd say is this the campaign Parker's bill.

Go ahead, go ahead, councilman.

Is this the Senate campaign to delegate Bennett Parker's bill?

I believe it is, and the only concern is is um that they do say we would get reimbursed, and Kevin, correct me if I'm saying this wrong, but that makes it reliant on the appropriations process.

So they we will get embersed provided there is that in the appropriations process.

Is that okay?

Right.

And the bill passed out of Ed and Health 14-0 and got sent to finance.

So we'll get that question answered fairly soon.

I think if we're already supporting delegate Bennett Parker and our schools support it, then this would be one where we would want to have support.

Absolutely.

And I wonder if it might I don't want to create more work.

I also I also want to avoid like having to talk about things twice.

If there's a way when we build the spreadsheet to link house and synod companion bills so that we would be taking uh the position on them at the same time, I think that would be ideal.

We will try to figure out a way to do that.

Yeah, I know they don't formally designate always, so it can be an issue, but if but if that there is sort of a way to determine that, I think it would be good.

Um, and then last thing this is not for I guess like the city.

I know there are a number of bills here that have um in the watch category.

On uh mommying too.

Hold on, Melanie.

Hold on.

Okay, sorry.

There are a number of bills related to um parking requirements.

I can understand the city's position for watch.

I did want to say though that there are a number of other discussions going on around with different mayors across the region on maybe taking a stronger position on these.

So I'll work with staff.

I understand the implications, but just wanted to flag that there might be some other momentum on these bills and other conversations happening.

And I think as a council, I know we've even talked about talking about parking requirements.

So there might be some deeper discussion that we just need to have as a full council on these ones.

Are there any others in the watch category that staff wanted to discuss?

No.

Okay.

So then I think next step, I know Wendy, I think we have docketed on Tuesday that we will formally adopt all of the positions that we've taken so far.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Just let me know if there's any additional proper things that we need to do be um you can offline before we have that discussion.

Um with that, are there any other questions or comments that we need to cover?

Okay.

I don't see any.

So it is 6.18, and I think we are officially adjourned.

Thank you all for your time.

Hope everyone has a good rest of your Friday.

Take care.

Appreciate it.

Oh, right before my chat.